Ray A wrote:Note that Pahoran is not a Pundit. And he's no slouch with knowledge. So before we cry foul, think. I agree it's not consistent, but it's not entirely inconsistent either. Some very knowledgeable TBM defenders have never made Pundit status.
Pahoran was next on my list. Actually he is probably at the top of my list since he's such a defender. Also BCSpace, Benjamin McGuire, cinepro for sure...
I wasn't trying to put forth the idea that some critics were "getting the shaft" in the honorary title department by the way. I just wondered if there were any criteria for the title. After looking at the list (hey I found out MAD has a search feature) I'd say there are no criteria beyond the Mods opinion (and for allowing people into the pundits forum).
Bond
The main criteria is being friends with the right people. It truly is as simple as that.
Mister Scratch wrote:The main criteria is being friends with the right people. It truly is as simple as that.
In some cases, I would say so. But is beastie Juliann's friend? It is true that she had to go into the pundit forum to debate Juliann, but despite those two being like cat and dog she's still there with that status.
Harmony:
As for the others who are not yet granted that status, it seems that one must have a thread in the pundit forum, either by being started there or being moved there. Evidently Tarski et al have not yet been granted that privilege.
Not always. Many have been made pundits without first going to the pundit forum. I know a list was drawn up long before the forum started, and it was shortlisted, and Vogel and Metcalfe were on the original list. In Tarski's case, he's a university professor, and as far as his expertise is concerned you'd think he would be a pundit. I don't know of anyone on the forum who understand physics better than he does. Ben MacGuire is another who is not a pundit, and he's no slouch with the Book of Mormon. In the end it's only a status, and status means little in comparison to real knowledge of a subject.
Ray A wrote:Note that Pahoran is not a Pundit. And he's no slouch with knowledge.
When I first came to the FAIR boards I used to read through all of Pahoran's posts, and yes some of them contained information, but I soon started to skip them completely because they were so full of venom. The information/venom balance was so off kilter, it just wasn't worth it.
I find him repellant, and when I was a member he would have been an embarassment to me.
Actually, Scratch has it right regarding Pundit status. It's not necessarily who you're "friends" with, but it is all subjective to the Moderators' whims.
When the Pundit status was first created, the "rule" was that in order to be a pundit, you had to be published. The "rule" then was changed to a significant number of "scholarly posts".
It boils down to just being about who the Mods feel is "deserving" of the title.
liz3564 wrote:Actually, Scratch has it right regarding Pundit status. It's not necessarily who you're "friends" with, but it is all subjective to the Moderators' whims.
Scratch's comment was that it does matter who you're friends with.
liz3564 wrote:Actually, Scratch has it right regarding Pundit status. It's not necessarily who you're "friends" with, but it is all subjective to the Moderators' whims.
When the Pundit status was first created, the "rule" was that in order to be a pundit, you had to be published. The "rule" then was changed to a significant number of "scholarly posts".
It boils down to just being about who the Mods feel is "deserving" of the title.
I'm published. Of course at the time I was an undergrad and it's not as though what I published was particularly wonderful and even then I wasn't the main author. It also didn't have anything to do with religion (other than the fact that I was at BYU at the time). The only pundity thing I could do is correct math so there's really no need for me being a pundit.
I suspect Tarski isn't a pundit because there's really nobody qualified to take him on in his field. Maybe Zeta-Flux is, but I really don't know.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
There was, I think, an initial list. And I wasn't on it.
I think though that the real requirement to be made a pundit is to be a participant in a pre-approved discussion in that forum. If I need to start a discussion there (as I am inclined to do right now with CKSalmon if he wants on the notion of Hirsch's intentionality), I assume they will give me that status - as well as extending it to CKS. I also suspect that people who are allowed to post in there will lose that status if they start engaging in discussion in which they really aren't a part. The whole idea (If I recall correctly) was more or less to create a publicly accessible one-on-one or small group forum.
I suspect Tarski isn't a pundit because there's really nobody qualified to take him on in his field. Maybe Zeta-Flux is, but I really don't know.[/color]
Yet virtually everyone takes on DCP and his PhD. Maybe the perception is that Daniel's PhD isn't quite the same as Tarski's?